Webdiary - Founded and Inspired by Margo Kingston |
 |
 |
 |
 |
 |
 |
 |
|
 |
Sins of emission
Howard rejects warning on greenhouse emissions
Prime Minister John Howard has dismissed calls for Australia to cut its greenhouse emissions by 60 per cent by 2050 in order to combat the effects of global warming.
The suggestions were made in a report commissioned by the Business Roundtable on Climate Change, comprising companies such as BP, the Visy Corporation and Westpac Bank.
The report, by the CSIRO, warns that if Australia does not cut emissions by more than half, the Great Barrier Reef will be lost and the Kakadu wetlands will dry up.
Westpac Bank Group general manager Noel Purcell says the science debate has been won.
"No one is contesting, at least no one at any major government level nor at any major business level nor the coal lobby, that we ultimately have to get serious - cut 60 per cent reduction in emissions by around 2050 if we're ever going to stabilise the level of greenhouse gases in the atmosphere," he said.
But Mr Howard has told ABC's Four Corners he wants to see compelling evidence to support the report's findings.
"That sort of scenario, 60 per cent for Australia, would have enormously damaging impacts on our economy, on the price of petrol, on a whole lot of things," he said.
"It would have a very big impact on ... our GDP, because to achieve that you have to impose a carbon tax."
 |
|
 |
 |
| © 2005-2011, Webdiary Pty Ltd |
| Disclaimer: | This site is home to many debates, and the views expressed on this site are not necessarily those of the site editors. Contributors submit comments on their own responsibility: if you believe that a comment is incorrect or offensive in any way, please submit a comment to that effect and we will make corrections or deletions as necessary. |
Climate Change or - continuous wars?
In my last entry I said: "So I guess little Johnnie will wait until told what to do yet again?"
Surely the "New Order" Liberals would agree that the Leader of their Party is totally servile to the Bush Administration. Every word, every act and every plan is a direct mirror-image of those of George W. Bush. The worst and most powerful moron in the world.
So when John Howard says that Australia will make up its own mind, could anyone please tell me when he has done ANYTHING contrary to the demands of the U.S.?
When he castigates the "cheek" of the Solomon Islands P.M. in daring to expel Howard's Ambassador for interfering in the local politics, I guess he is worrying about his U.S. duty as Deputy Sheriff to the Tyrant.
Perhaps he has forgotten that in the Australian 2004 election debacle, the U.S. Government interfered egregiously, and their Ambassador in Australia, Shaeffer was very demanding that we vote for their boy! Now that IS interfering - but, Howard smirked and carried on with his orders.
A typical example of servility is the disgusting "brown-nosing" by the Federal Liberals regarding their continuing Leper treatment of David Hicks. The Americans confidently insisted that David's Australian Lawyers, both in the ADF Reserves, were made to sign a "draconian secrecy agreement". This "gagged them from speaking about evidence in their client's case and allowed for their extradition to the United States if they breached its terms". Fair dinkum.
"One clause in the lengthy document requires the Lawyers to 'voluntarily, knowingly and willingly' consent to the Australian Government extraditing them to the U.S. for prosecution, if it appears they have violated any U.S. military commission regulations governing classified or protected information".
Did the Howard Liberals agree to this? YES THEY DID.
The SMH article goes on to say that even though the U.S. military commissions have been ruled illegal by their own Supreme Court. While a new style of Legal Commission is being considered, the Australian Attorney-General's spokesman Michael Penny, said the government regarded the conditions as still binding!!! But of course.
Hick's previous Australian lawyer, Stephen Kenny, was required to sign a similar document in 2003, but insisted that the extradition clause be struck out. That change was accepted. Mr. Kenny was confronted by a General from the Pentagon but he said "I'm not going to give up my rights, no matter what you think. I'm an Australian citizen and you can't ask me to do that." "They're bullies" he said.
The other two lawyers signed, but in an interview with Good Weekend, Mr. Mcleod expressed surprise that his government would be party to such an agreement. WHY would this gentleman be surprised?
Perhaps they forced Howard into line by threatening to bomb Australia "back to the stone ages" - as they did with Pakistan. But with Howard's obvious snivelling obedience, pressure would be unnecessary.
So when we start considering Australian Values B.H. and P.H. (before Howard and post-Howard) these acts against the dignity and well-being of Australian citizens will count with all but the conga-line of "wannabes".
NE OUBLIE.
Our future is in the hands of a megalomaniac.
The preceeding article only highlights the lack of personal vision or Statesmanship of the Liberal's Prime Minister John Howard.
On the possibility of a U-turn by the President George W. Bush on climate change, in The Age yesterday Mr. Howard was "asked if a US change of policy would affect him". Mr. Howard said, "Australia made up its own mind". Now there is a switch!!!
He said it would affect our economy (currently collapsing), the price of petrol (about which he says he can't do anything), our GDP (already at an all time high), and it might cause a carbon tax (along with our already highest taxes in Australia's history).
Could it be that the person who nationally won the most votes for President of the U.S. over G.W. Bush, has campaigned around the world on his "An Inconvenient Truth". Not the sort of thing that George would approve of - and yet......?
Howard (who hasn't consulted his "democractic" Ministry - tut tut) states that "It will send industries offshore, send Australian jobs to countries like China and Indonesia". Do you believe that under current circumstances? As Mark Latham said: "How does Howard get away with it"?
Other than protecting the Corporations, I cannot find any logic in that attitude. It has the smell of the U.S. excessive Weapons of mass destruction - one is enough to make the others unnecessary.
This little man concludes that Terror is more important than the Climate change. Even with his delusions, that is ludicrous. That could only be the case "for his lifetime". But by then, while the terrorising of oppressed peoples on this globe continue to fight for their freedoms from terror - the end result will be the destruction of the planet as we know it. Fair dinkum.
How would the American Military/Corporate survive without their pre-emtive wars?
So I guess little Johnnie will wait until told what to do yet again?
Fair dinkum.